 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
St Leo
|
 |
Member of the Apolyton Social Democratic Party
Jul 2005
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What I find it funny that the folks who value the separation of the church and state, are siding with the Muslims who want to infuse the act of swearing in an oath with much more religious significance than previous. |
Ethically, we can either side with letting everyone swear on their holy book, or letting no one swear on any holy book. Those are the two options fair to everybody.
Abolition makes some sense -- there's less chance of biasing the judge or the jury against you -- but it would probably smoke a bunch of nutcases to protest and rage and rave out of the woodwork and is not really worth the pain. It's just a silly, optional ritual.
BTW, affirmation:
quote:
In law, an affirmation is a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath, but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath.
The Constitution of the United States makes four references to an "oath or affirmation": In Article I, Senators must take a special oath or affirmation for the purpose of sitting as the tribunal for impeachment; in Article II, the president is required to take a specified oath or affirmation before entering office (see oath of office); in Article VI, all state and federal officials must take an oath or affirmation to support the U.S. Constitution; and in Amendment IV, all search warrants must be supported by evidence given under oath or affirmation. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
No, I think them swearing on the Koran is fine, as it is for Christians to swear on a Bible, or Jews to swear on the Torah, or me to swear on a copy of the U.S. Constitution, should we all so choose. Hence why I listed both options in my post...
|
You would swear on the US constitution, as one nation under God? That surprises me, Boris. How is that different from the bible?
quote:
What I don't agree with is your nonsense that it should be fine for non-Christians to have to swear on the Bible.
|
Everyone does this, regardless of what creed. In this, the act is stripped of it's religious significance, and reinforces the concept that everyone is equal before the law. In introducing different books for different people, you are now imputing the concept that people are not to be treated exactly the same way.
Now to someone who opposes an oath to the state, they do so, regardless of the content, or the object of the oath. The act of taking the oath to reinforce testimony, is in itself, sinful. This is different, from what you are saying here, where the oath does not matter, but the object does. In doing so, you restore meaning to the object of the oath, whether it be a bible or a Koran.
The second problem, you still haven't resolved, is how to account for those who are skeptics and atheists? What would they swear upon?
quote:
Furthermore, I find your red herring attempt utterly repugnant and an insult to American Muslims.
|
Be so as it may. Those who are willing to abide by American laws and the American judicial system deserve the credit you apply to them. Those who do not, are not worthy of your defense.
Secondly, the fact that you single me out from all the others, makes me wonder why you do not say anything about the others who are nervous about Muslim requests to change the judicial system. Why me? I'm not even an American.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, I argued that because the Muslims do not have secular courts whatsoever, as evidenced in their persecution of Christians, that their comment on the secular American courts has little merit.
|
I wasn't aware of american christians were persecuted by american muslims. Do you have some sources ?
quote:
To those who do not wish to prescribe the morning after pill, the prescription of such pill is the same as being an accessory to murder.
|
Then they shouldn't work in that area.
quote:
My question to the atheists, is whether they would ever be willing to swear an oath on the bible, ie, that their opposition to swearing such an oath is of such importance to them, that they would be willing to sacrifice other things in order to decline having to swear on the bible. Then we talk on whether it is a conscience issue.
|
Swearing on the bible is just as meaningless as swearing on a copy of Winnie the Pooh - both are a bunch of paper with words printed upon. Same goes for any other socalled holy scripture.
Neither of those books will give any guarantee that testimony will be more truthfull than a plain affirmation to tell the truth.
Just consider a mafia hitman or a columbian drugdealer - both are probably highly religious and go to church every sunday, but do you really think that it will make any difference for them that they have sworn on the bible ?
quote:
Many of the atheists here have argued that an oath to nothing is meaningless, which means it is not a conscience issue at all. |
I must have missed something - I thought it was quite the opposite.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You would swear on the US constitution, as one nation under God? That surprises me, Boris. How is that different from the bible? |
That's the Pledge of Allegiance, you dolt. 
The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of God whatsoever.
quote:
Everyone does this, regardless of what creed. In this, the act is stripped of it's religious significance, and reinforces the concept that everyone is equal before the law. In introducing different books for different people, you are now imputing the concept that people are not to be treated exactly the same way. |
This patently preposterous. Introducing different books is precisely what ensures the oath has meaning--each swearer chooses what has meaning for himself. Christians swearing on Bibles has a religious meaning for them, whether it matters to others or not. But his no meaning to non-Christians, so you are, in effect, rendering the oath meaningless to any non-Christians who take it by forcing them to use an item that doesn't matter to them.
The entire reason for mandating a text to be sworn on is because it is SUPPOSED to have meaning, for the person swearing by it. That you consider it a "sin" is nice, but irrelevant, because most people don't share this particular view.
quote:
The second problem, you still haven't resolved, is how to account for those who are skeptics and atheists? What would they swear upon? |
Whatever they so choose. I said this before, and I said I myself would choose the Constitution. What matters is that the item has signficance to the swearer.
quote:
Be so as it may. Those who are willing to abide by American laws and the American judicial system deserve the credit you apply to them. Those who do not, are not worthy of your defense. |
The same may be said of any Christians, too. So what?
The point is that what these Muslims are asking isn't in any way "persecution" of Christians. Quite the opposite--they're asking to not be compelled to engage in an act they personally find contrary to their religion.
quote:
Secondly, the fact that you single me out from all the others, makes me wonder why you do not say anything about the others who are nervous about Muslim requests to change the judicial system. Why me? I'm not even an American. |
Singled you out? Who else expressed anything like what you did in this regard? Nobody that I can see. Is this persecution complex of yours going to continue much longer?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, I argued that because the Muslims do not have secular courts whatsoever, as evidenced in their persecution of Christians, that their comment on the secular American courts has little merit. |
Muslim *countries* do not have secular courts. Muslims who live in the USA are just are American as anyone else, so have as much right to comment as any Christian American. Unless all Christian people shouldn't be allowed an opinion on wars because Christian countries have found crusades before.
Moreover, countries that are Muslim by law are allowed to lack secular courts. Countries that claim to be non denominational are not allowed to have religious courts. The difference is the seperation of church and state. If it is seperated by law, then religious courts are not allowed. If it isn't, then religious courts are perfectly legal.
If they want to claim seperation of church and state, they should live by it. No state sponsored religion means not forcing people to use the holy book of that religion.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
To those who do not wish to prescribe the morning after pill, the prescription of such pill is the same as being an accessory to murder.
My question to the atheists, is whether they would ever be willing to swear an oath on the bible, ie, that their opposition to swearing such an oath is of such importance to them, that they would be willing to sacrifice other things in order to decline having to swear on the bible. Then we talk on whether it is a conscience issue.
Many of the atheists here have argued that an oath to nothing is meaningless, which means it is not a conscience issue at all. |
I wasn't arguing about atheists. I said people who hate the bible. Suppose a fundemantalist Muslim, who hates the bible, is forced to swear an oath on it. Is that not a violation of freedom of conscience? You're forcing him to swear on a book he abhors, not just one he doesn't believe in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
I wasn't aware of american christians were persecuted by american muslims. Do you have some sources ?
|
Pardon me? I wasn't aware that American Muslims were persecuted by American Christians.
In many places around the world, where Muslims are in the majority, Christians get persecuted. That's the issue here. In countries that protect religious freedoms, like the United States, Muslims are asked to abide by the same laws as everyone else, even as they are protected by the same laws.
I don't see how Muslims are persecuted by having to swear an oath on a bible, like everyone else. If provisions are made to allow Jews to swear on their holy book, or other substitutions, then the Muslims ought also be able to do so.
Another solution would be to do away with swearing an oath altogether.
quote:
Then they shouldn't work in that area.
|
Why should pharmacists be required to prescribe the morning after pill? I think they have every right not to prescribe the morning after pill, and to work as a pharmacist, according to their degree that they worked very hard to get.
quote:
Swearing on the bible is just as meaningless as swearing on a copy of Winnie the Pooh - both are a bunch of paper with words printed upon. Same goes for any other socalled holy scripture.
|
quote:
Neither of those books will give any guarantee that testimony will be more truthfull than a plain affirmation to tell the truth.
|
I agree wholeheartedly with what you say here. Which is why I don't understand why swearing on a bible is persecution of Muslims.
quote:
Many of the atheists here have argued that an oath to nothing is meaningless, which means it is not a conscience issue at all. |
How can an oath, which in no way constrains you, be contrary to your conscience?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by St Leo
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
A good bourgeois you are. |
Well, excuse me for not being a Maoist.:P
|
Its just that you reminded me of many years ago. Political phil prof (a prominent democratic socialist, BTW) is lecturing on Coriolanus (the Shakespeare play) and a student mentions that the title character is "honest" "No" he quickly corrects, "Coriolanus is sincere, honesty is a bourgeois virtue"
Remember, there ARE serious ethical systems that will justify lying in specific instances. The narrow insistence on not telling a lie, regardless of consequences, is, historically, a creation of the middle class, who needed it to ease their business dealings (regardless of its Kantian justification). Not all those who would lie are necessarily antisocial types who would also take an oath lightly - that I think, is the assumption behind the requirement for the oath. Perhaps its outdated. As for its actual effectiveness, vs cross ex, etc, I would await the expertise of an actual trial lawyer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Actually, I've known several Muslims who wouldn't dream of saying anything as offensive like this about Christians. This superior attitude of yours is astounding!
|
Well, for starters, I don't try to shoot Muslims, and I don't go out of my way to harrass them, or kill them, as what happens to Christians in most Muslim countries who dare to practice their religion openly.
I don't see why it is offensive for me to go and say that because I refrain from doing any of these things, that then I have more respect for their religion then they do for mine.
Heck, there are plenty of things that I agree with Muslims on, where we are on the same side of the fence, so it makes little sense for me to spit in their face, and to disrespect them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
Good job, Ben! Keep fighting for that "most bigotted" title to go along with your "most intellectually dishonest" title.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
I wasn't arguing about atheists. I said people who hate the bible. Suppose a fundemantalist Muslim, who hates the bible, is forced to swear an oath on it. Is that not a violation of freedom of conscience? You're forcing him to swear on a book he abhors, not just one he doesn't believe in.
|
The US forces a fundamentalist Muslim to do many things he abhors, including respecting those who openly practice their religion, especially Christians and Jews. I am not certain, by your argument here, that the problem is with the ritual, rather than the person, since by your argument, I would think a moderate Muslim would see nothing wrong with the ritual.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Pardon me? I wasn't aware that American Muslims were persecuted by American Christians.
In many places around the world, where Muslims are in the majority, Christians get persecuted. That's the issue here. In countries that protect religious freedoms, like the United States, Muslims are asked to abide by the same laws as everyone else, even as they are protected by the same laws.
|
Exactly, so why bring up the issue ? If I'm not wrong, we are talking about what happens in the North Carolina legal system.
quote:
I don't see how Muslims are persecuted by having to swear an oath on a bible, like everyone else. If provisions are made to allow Jews to swear on their holy book, or other substitutions, then the Muslims ought also be able to do so.
|
As I read the story, those muslims doesn't feel that they are persecuted, they just wan't to swear on qoran instead of the bible.
quote:
Another solution would be to do away with swearing an oath altogether.
|
An oath doesn't have to be based on religion - just a plain "I swear to tell the truth" should be enough.
quote:
Why should pharmacists be required to prescribe the morning after pill? I think they have every right not to prescribe the morning after pill, and to work as a pharmacist, according to their degree that they worked very hard to get.
|
It cannot come as a chock to such persons that if they take such an education they are supposed to deliver any kind o legal drugs, so if they have problems with that, they should find another carrer.
quote:
I agree wholeheartedly with what you say here. Which is why I don't understand why swearing on a bible is persecution of Muslims.
|
Noone is talking about persecution of muslims. Anyway, I see that you will find no problems if the bible was switched with the quoran - after all, thats also just a book, and no christians will find it uncomfortable to take an oath on it.
quote:
How can an oath, which in no way constrains you, be contrary to your conscience? |
One of the purposes of making that oath is to make the witness aware of the seriousness of the testimony they are to give, and if they have to take an oath of something they see as a fairy tale, this is lost.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
It cannot come as a chock to such persons that if they take such an education they are supposed to deliver any kind o legal drugs, so if they have problems with that, they should find another carrer.
|
Are they, in fact required to provide all the drugs that are legal? Or are there specific drugs that they are required to provide? If they are not legally required to provide the morning after pill, then I see nothing wrong with a pharmacist who refuses to stock them.
quote:
Noone is talking about persecution of muslims. Anyway, I see that you will find no problems if the bible was switched with the quoran - after all, thats also just a book, and no christians will find it uncomfortable to take an oath on it.
|
If you read what I posted, I would see the two as the same, but I would have a problem with both of them, for the same reason.
And yes, there are quite a few Christians, two in this thread alone, Diplomat and myself who would prefer to let our yes be yes and our no, no.
quote:
One of the purposes of making that oath is to make the witness aware of the seriousness of the testimony they are to give, and if they have to take an oath of something they see as a fairy tale, this is lost.
|
Which isn't a conscience issue, then is it? It's hardly offensive if it is a collection of fairy tales, since swearing by the Brothers Grimm could hardly stir the same complaints.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Are they, in fact required to provide all the drugs that are legal? Or are there specific drugs that they are required to provide? If they are not legally required to provide the morning after pill, then I see nothing wrong with a pharmacist who refuses to stock them.
|
Unless I'm wrong, then you must have the education as a pharmacist to sell drugs - that is the case here with a few exceptions - so yes, they have no right to deny to provide any legal drug - if I'm not wrong, then the drug store we both are referring to (another thread) had it in stock but the pharmacist wouldn't sell it on religious beliefs.
quote:
If you read what I posted, I would see the two as the same, but I would have a problem with both of them, for the same reason.
And yes, there are quite a few Christians, two in this thread alone, Diplomat and myself who would prefer to let our yes be yes and our no, no.
|
But if both are equally bad, why won't you allow them both instead of banning one of them ?
quote:
Which isn't a conscience issue, then is it? It's hardly offensive if it is a collection of fairy tales, since swearing by the Brothers Grimm could hardly stir the same complaints. |
Of course it's a consience issue, but not as you see it. It's a matter of taking the law seriously, wich can be a problem if the court demands you to swear on a fairy tale.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The US forces a fundamentalist Muslim to do many things he abhors, including respecting those who openly practice their religion, especially Christians and Jews. I am not certain, by your argument here, that the problem is with the ritual, rather than the person, since by your argument, I would think a moderate Muslim would see nothing wrong with the ritual. |
Nice dodge, but the question was, is it a violation of his freedom of conscience? Or do you now believe a right to freedom of conscience only exists if you're a moderate, and not a hardliner? Is the state forcing a hardline Muslim to swear on a bible that he abhors a violation of his freedom of conscience? And if so, how can you condone it, while also stating that Christian's freedom of conscience should be respected?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2005 22:57
|